The High Court has allowed Ballymore Residential Limited and Crosswinds Cottage Limited to rely at trial on contested expert evidence in their proceedings against Roadstone Limited and other defendants. The evidence concerns the effect of Green Certificate requirements on homeowners and Roadstone products used in houses outside the proceedings.
Mr Justice Liam Kennedy ruled on the application on 11 February 2025. He said Ballymore could seek an indemnity based on alleged liability to homeowners and that the position had been clarified. The plaintiffs must still prove the alleged liability and that their settlements were reasonable. The judge did not decide the substantive liability or damages issues, or how far Ballymore must prove it did not overpay in settling.
Ballymore alleges that stone supplied by Roadstone contained pyrite and caused damage, including pyritic heave, to foundations in residential properties. Roadstone denies that its product contained pyrite, caused damage or was defective. The judge described those issues as matters for trial.
The dispute over the new evidence arose after Ballymore served expert reports in November 2024. The defendants argued that parts of the evidence went beyond the pleadings and prior notice, including evidence from a real estate agent and evidence about other houses. Ballymore said the homeowners’ claims and its own claim for indemnity were not limited to physical remediation costs.
The judge said the pleadings did not make a standalone claim for losses from homeowners being temporarily unable to sell without a Green Certificate obvious. He nevertheless considered such a claim stateable in principle. He also said evidence about other houses could potentially be admissible as similar-fact evidence.
Roadstone must have sufficient time to respond, including with expert evidence and, if required, evidence from a real estate agent. The judge said six weeks should be ample. He noted that focused requests for particulars or limited further discovery could be made if necessary, subject to relevance and fairness.
The ruling means the trial scheduled to begin on 29 April 2025 could not realistically proceed. The judge said a Michaelmas trial appeared more realistic and intended intensive case management, with pre-trial matters to be completed by April. He invited the parties to confer on directions and listed the matter for the following Tuesday, with costs also to be addressed then.